In the past we have said that Islam is not a true religion, but a politico-militaristic movement with a religious veneer. We have also said that it is the very picture of Marxism. In theory Islam and Atheism/Marxism are incompatible. But, as with everything Islamic, two rules apply – the Koranic theological ‘front’ and the actuality of Islamic life and activity. In this paper I will show you why I say that Islam epitomises Marxism.

“Diverse forms of Marxism agree that social ills result from oppression of the poor by the wealthy (class conflict) but differ on strategies to overcome poverty and establish social harmony. Marxism is also associated with atheism, based on Karl Marx's view that religion is used by rulers to legitimise the status quo, causing many Muslims to reject Marxism. But due to the affinity between Marxist and Islamic ideals of social justice, some Muslims adopted various forms of Marxism from the 1940s, reaching peak popularity in the 1960s and 1970s. Their analyses often ignored materialism and atheism, rejecting the idealist view that religion is independent of historical conditions and holding instead that many of its manifestations are related to the societies in which it operates. Islam in this view ideally meets the needs of society and can both accommodate and guide social change.” (The Oxford Dictionary of Islam).

Islam is a mixed bag of ideals, some of it based on the Koran, and the rest on a wide variety of ‘interpretations’ of its words (hadith). That is why Muslims follow this or that interpretation and, along with it, the Imams and other ‘authorities’ who provide the interpretation. Islam is remarkably divided and portrays a very wide spectrum of variegated views as to the meaning of the Koran – though its meaning is very clear when read without prejudice. It has a very open purpose: to rule by violence and death, and to eliminate all Muslims and others who will not obey. Typical Marxism.

While modern Muslims complain that the West is the reason for Islamic unrest, they nevertheless travel long distances to live in the West! Then, when they reach the West, they complain again that they are not being given sufficient help with all the trappings of the West they despise! As the quote above claims, Marxism says social ills result from the oppression of the poor (we say the reason is personal sin). In Islamic countries this oppression is a major fact, and those who oppress the poorest Muslims are – rich Muslims, oil sheiks, etc., who have no interest whatever in helping their Islamic countries to progress, or their poor brethren to rise above their poverty.

Thus, the Islamic wealthy are the ones who inflict social unrest upon their own countrymen, but successfully blame the West by projecting their own failures and stark disinterest in their follow Muslims onto ‘others’... and the uneducated masses buy it, because propaganda against the West is taught from birth. A very good example of the success of this propagandisation is the non-state of ‘Palestine’, where Muslims blindly believe the hatred from groups such as Hamas, who add Israel to its list of most-hated. In every way, Islam gains ground not by truth but by heavy propaganda – exactly the means used by classic Marxism.

In the quote above we see that Marx said “religion is used by rulers to legitimise the status quo”. This is what Middle Eastern and African Islamic despots do every day! They are immensely wealthy and have great power – but this is only so because they refuse to help the poorer rise from the dirt. They refuse to bring their countrymen into the technical world. Instead, they foster internal fights and unrest, so that the status quo continues through false finger-pointing at the West.

Even so, note that there is an “affinity between Marxist and Islamic ideals of social justice.” But, to say that Islam “meets the needs of society and can both accommodate and guide social change.” is truly farcical, for no Islamic state changes, except superficially. It is in the interests of Islamic rulers to maintain a huge divide between themselves and the people, and to blame ‘the West’ (e.g. lust for oil) for the differences in quality of life. Because they are uneducated and indoctrinated, they believe the lie. And so the Marxism of modern Islam is successful in diverting attention from home affairs to foreign affairs. Classic communism!

Islamic Socialism

(One source: Wikipedia: ‘Islamic Socialism’ and ‘Muhammad in Medina’)

The phrase was coined by Muslims, who believe their modern version of Islam is a ‘spiritual form of socialism’. (By the same token we also have so-called ‘Christian socialism’, an erroneous form of politics, like socialism itself). Those who believe in it say that the Koran is compatible with economic and social equality.

Yet, Islam is divided against itself and is fractured into many splinters. In Islam there are no equalities; the way women are treated is just one example of this lie. And, Islamic countries are very poor – the wealth staying in the hands of rulers whose attitude is either very violent or uninterested towards their fellow Muslims. This leads Western charities to foolishly send aid to the poor in those countries, though God specifically warns that we may not help those who hate Him, and though the money sent usually finds its way into the pockets of rulers.

These socialists are said to take their model from Mohammed himself and build upon ‘anti-imperialism’. This is very strange when one considers that Islam itself is ‘imperialistic’! Islamic socialists also believe in democracy and having their legitimacy from the general (Islamic) public. Of course, this is counter to what we see in Islam today, where Muslims around the world scream obscenities at cameras, wave black flags, and warn of death against the West AND against fellow Muslims who refuse to join the fanaticism.

Political Islam

Socialists see a direct correlation between Islam and Marxism, because Islam has become more political: “(we debunk) the notion that the rise of Islamist organizations is the natural outgrowth of Islam, and instead point to the historical de facto separation between religion and politics in Muslim majority societies.”

“... for at least the last two centuries and up until the last few decades of the twentieth century, the dominant trend in the “Muslim world” was toward secularization. The turn toward Islamism in the last three decades of the twentieth century was the product of particular economic and political conditions. Moreover, these conditions are not dissimilar to the ones that enabled the rise of other fundamentalisms, such as Hindu fundamentalism in India and the New Right in the United States.” (International Socialist Review, Marxism, Issue 76)

Note: Islam has always been political. Indeed, it IS a form of politics, not religion per se. Socialists blame the USA for suggesting political socialism as an alternative to Islam itself. Domination and other ‘causes’ are entered into the blame box – but this, even if true, does not ‘cause’ anyone to kill another person or to show extreme hatred. Hard-core Islam, they say, merely filled a gap left by Muslim secularism.

Today, we see this in Turkey, which is now hardening its stance towards the West after years of secularism and reliance on western tourism cash. Are they now freed of this reliance by cash from Saudi Arabia? Socialists claim that this change gave rise to Islamic ‘charitable networks’... yet it is Islamists and their countries that reject charitable works amongst Muslims. Notably, Islamic nations have not accepted a single Muslim migrant escaping from war zones, for fear of violence spreading within their borders. However, they are more than keen to send them to the West – hated though it is – and to spread jihad there. Another reason is that jihad and birth growth will topple the West, because the West does not have capable leaders to deal toughly with a ‘spoilt-brat’ Islam. When Islam becomes the rule, the West will itself become an economic backwater alongside the Eastern and African Islamic states.

“... political Islam refers to a range of groups that have come into being based on a reinterpretation of Islam to serve particular political goals.” (ISR, as above)

“Muhammad’s spiritual drive was partially fueled by socio-economic passions, by the desire to strengthen the commercial standing of the Arabs and the need to impose a set of common rules. His vision encompassed a tribal confederation united by common goals and loyal to a single faith…. Islam became the cement utilized by Muhammad to unite the Arab tribes and, from the beginning, it regarded commerce as the only noble occupation.” (Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads, and Modernity (New York: Verso, 2003), 29.)

Note that Tariq Ali is of the left, a Marxist of Pakistani communistic Islam. When looking back to his youth, he said "I grew up an atheist. I make no secret of it. It was acceptable. In fact, when I think back, none of my friends were believers. None of them were religious; maybe a few were believers. But very few were religious in temperament." (The Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, 8 May 2003)

This honest appraisal of his Islamic background can be seen in the activity of many Muslims today, who, though repressed, suppressed and oppressed by Islam still act violently against the West, while copying its more corrupt practices and vices. The following was quoted in Islamicity.org

“I belong to the Marxist school of thought. Therefore, naturally I’m in favor of a communist /socialist society. But I’m not a dogmatist. I always try to keep myself sensitive to criticism. And I think that this is the right approach to Marxism: to scientifically and to objectively analyze the human society, without any personal (or at least minimum) biases. However, I’m a Muslim as well …”

The reply to the communication was this:

“When you say that you are a Marxist as well as a Muslim, you are making a statement which is internally contradictory. You are either one or the other. Because Marxism, the little I understand it, has a complete philosophy on life; likewise has Islam. Their respective philosophies do not coincide at all; in fact, they are poles apart. However, that doesn’t mean that a good Muslim cannot be impressed by any of the Marxist ideas at all. What cannot however happen is that you accept both philosophies at the same time. Either we have been created purposefully by God or we accidentally came into being by a chance interplay of some indefinable physical forces. How can both understandings be simultaneously correct.”

Yet, this is exactly what modern Islam looks like – a combination of both Marxism and Islam. They might indeed be ‘poles apart’, but those hungry for power and riches will happily coincide the two, regardless of internal inconsistencies. Today, radical Islam is just a grown-up version of the socialistic Koran, a natural growth from a hitherto sleeping movement. And the way it shows its shape and form is in classical Marxism, which imposes itself on hapless citizens by force and death. It is no different from Marxism in early Russia and China.

Muslims Admit Marxism and Islam are Essentially the Same

In a spoof letter between a modern Islamist and Karl Marx, we have this:

“Look Karl, we discovered, to our utter surprise, that what you wrote in your scripture, the Das Kapital, and what Allah wrote in the Holy Qur'an are quite similar. For example, you wanted to establish the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' in the world through armed struggle, if needed, which is another name for Communist Terrorism, won't you agree? Now, read the Qur'an. What does it say? Yes, it preaches the same idea, believe it or not. Comrade, many verses of the Qur'an clearly states that the idea of Islam is to establish the 'Dictatorship of Allah' in the world through war and blood shed, which is the name for Islamic Terrorism. How uncanny this resemblance is, think of it! Don't you agree, my friend, that Peoples' Liberation Struggle and Islamic Jihad are the same?” (An Islamic Communist Writes to Karl Marx, Islam-watch, Abdul Kasem).

It continues:

“We also discovered a weird parallelism between your comrades and Hazrat Muhammad's companions. See, you had, as your ardent disciples, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro-.just to name a few. Hazrat Muhammad had Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Abu Huraira, Anas-How strange! Come to think of it. All of them specialized in terror, plunder, and genocide. Don't you think your diehard comrades even beat Muhammad's comrades in this very special art? Were not they very clever, comrade Karl?”

“We know, for sure, Allah has already incarcerated you in the Islamic Hell. Since there is very little difference from the dictatorship postulated by you and the dictatorship preached by Islam, don't you think it makes sense that we adopt an Islamic way of life now? By doing this we achieve Islamic bliss in Islamic Paradise and at the same time it will be possible to force the entire world to adopt your idea, which we now call Islamic Communism. We played the similar game in Iran, but in the end, the Mullah's played us out by slaughtering us 'enmasse'. But we don't care. We are, in fact, fallen in love with the Mullahs-believe it or not, for, they are actually advancing your cause by terror, plunder, suicide bombing etc. By joining with them we are simply enhancing your cause. Therefore, does it not make good sense that we shake hands with your former foes (i.e., Islamists) and find a way to rescue you from the hellfire that you are surely in right now?”

And

“Dear Guru, you mulled through the world history at the British Museum, dedicating a considerable period of your life to author the Das Kapital--the Qur.'an for the Communists. Was not it similar to Hazrat Muhammad's compilation of the Qur'an in the seclusion of the cave of Hira? See, how uncanny the similarities are! Comrade, did angel Gabriel speak to you and help you to write your Holy Scripture? Although we are pretty certain that he (Gabriel) did so, we are very curious to know. If the archangel Gabriel did not reveal the Das Kapital to you how could there be such strange parallels between your Philosophy and Allah's Philosophy, as dictated to Hazrat Muhammad? Could you kindly explain this apparent conundrum?”

“Now-a-days, we read these incredible books along with the Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, believe it or not. These Islamic Holy Scriptures sound almost similar to your works. It is a great pleasure to read them in this manner because this makes us acceptable to the Islamists. The Jihadists are also elated when they find that we head to mosques clutching the Qur'an and offering prayer standing and sitting by their side.”

“After reading many of those 'jewels' from the Hadis we discovered that it will be possible for you to get out of Islamic Hell by simply doing a few rituals. First, make an appointment to see Muhammad (in Islamic Paradise, of course) and announce that you have accepted Islam as your faith since you find no difference whatsoever with your 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' and the Islamic declaration of world domination by force. Once you have repented to Muhammad for your misdeed of not reading the Qur'an and Ahadith, he will contact Allah to forgive you, and please know that Allah will always please Hazrat Muhammad, the best creation of Him. After you have finished concurring with Muhammad, you need to make some changes to your personal habits and hygiene. On your personal habit, besides prostrating five-times-a-day, you must adopt the following five additional practices as dictated in Sahih Bukhari:

If you have trouble comprehending these seemingly mindless provisions, get a copy of the Sahih Bukhari from Muhammad and read.”

This might be a tongue-in-cheek letter, but it shows that Islam is none other than Marxism. The following piece repeats the Marxism of Islam (article, ‘Marx and Islam’, from the original version in Partisan Review, 1988, www.jochnowitz.net ):

“Before I lived in China, I opposed Marxism because I considered it cruel. After spending a profitable and enjoyable semester teaching at Hebei University in 1984, I not only opposed Marxism, I hated it - because it combines cruelty with opposition to reason. Suppressing free speech, which every Marxist regime has done, is a way of opposing thought. I learned about the great famine of 1959-61 when I lived in China. Like the famines created by Stalin, Pol Pot and the Kims - Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il - Chairman Mao's famine, the worst in human history, was murderous and, at the same time, purposeless and idiotic.

When I went back to China to teach at Hebei University during the spring semester of 1989, my own students were among those demonstrating in Tiananmen Square. I felt I saw Marxism as an intellectual system die before my eyes. Indeed, within a few months, Communist regimes had been overturned in country after country. In China, however, where 1989 began, the ghost of Marxism continues to rule, alas.”

As I have commented elsewhere, Marxism is like the body of El Cid strapped to a post on the back of his horse and sent out to lend terror to the approaching enemy who knew he was dead. Islam will die a similar death as communism, but Marxists insist on parading their corpses. And

“Karl Marx did not consider himself a mystic, and the philosophy he created was consciously committed to rationality. Yet Marxism has a definite mystical component. Marxists believe that capitalism is doomed, although there is no evidence to support such a belief. Stranger yet, they believe the state will wither away, although few states were ever less designed to wither than communist regimes. They even believe that alienated labour and conflict will end all by themselves once communism is achieved. If that is not mysticism, what is?”

“Before 1989, there were probably only two systems of belief left in the world that people would kill for: Islam and Marxism. Now there is only one: Islam. Deng Xiaoping, the last leader to kill for Communism, ordered the Tiananmen Massacre because he wanted the Chinese to believe in Marx. The counterexamples of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Northern Ireland immediately come to mind, but the troubles in these places are national rather than religious struggles, though the nationalities are defined by religious affiliation. In the 20th century, killing for one's nation is widespread; killing for one's belief is restricted to the world of blind faith. No one in Northern Ireland planted bombs to argue for the truth of transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. The citizens of Ulster, like those of Bosnia and Kosovo, fought for the control of their country, not to propagate their beliefs.”

“Muslims and Communists waged a bloody war in Afghanistan for several years. Islamic states have jailed Marxists; Communist countries have persecuted Muslims. Nevertheless, for a long time, there has existed an implicit Marxist-Islamic alliance. It operates in votes at the United Nations and in acquiescence or complicity in international terrorism. Leftist writers now feel free to attack Stalin and Mao, and maybe even Castro, but they remain blind to the excesses of Islamic regimes. For example, the Left has still not faced the fact that Khomeini's revolution in Iran and the victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan set back the rights of women more than any other event in any country in recorded history. During the first Gulf War, American leftists claimed they supported the relatively secular regime of Saddam Hussein over the orthodoxy of Saudi Arabia, but Hussein's strident anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism were what really linked him to the left. After that war Saddam Hussein became more openly pro-Islamic; nevertheless, he did not lose any support among secular leftists.”

“Marxism was strong - and Islam still is - for a variety of reasons. Each is a complex system of analysis, supported by a wealth of intellectual tradition, which can explain with every aspect of human life. To the educated, these philosophies offer a framework; to the simple, they offer the security of always knowing what is right and wrong. These positive strengths are supported by a great fear, the fear of a phenomenon perceived as evil: personal freedom - especially sexual freedom, and most particularly pornography and homosexuality. In addition to this great fear, there is a great obsession - an inordinate concern with an issue that really should not merit very much attention: Zionism.”

“America is not hated because it is Christian but because it is free. Despite this fact, anti-American leftists, feminists, and gay rights activists remain blind to the persecution of women and homosexuals in Islamic countries.”

“Irrationality did not die with Marxism. Nationalism is as fierce as ever. Religious fighting in India, a danger that seemed remote for decades, is once again a threat to life and peace. Blind faith, whether political or religious, places restrictions on thought. It is therefore a denial of the greatness - indeed, the essence - of the human species. Blind faith is what links Islam to the ghost of Marxism.”

It is true that on the surface Islam and Marxism are mutually incompatible... yet we have both combined in Islamic socialists! Islam is irrational anyway, so any amount of incompatibility can be accommodated in Islamic believers.

History of Islamic Socialism

(Source of some data from ‘Islamic Socialism: a History from Left to Right’, 2013, Nadeem F Paracha dwan.com)

To me, statements by Islamists that Islam is not compatible with Marxism have as much credibility as saying the Koran does not command Muslims to kill Christians and Jews. There are Muslim Socialists! Since when has compatibility ever stopped someone adopting extreme or inconsistent views? Islamic socialism began with intellectuals and slowly gained ground amongst Muslims everywhere.

Historians Sami A Hanna and Hanif Ramay say that the movement began in the late 19th/early 20th century, in Russia, under the hands of embittered Muslim farmers. Because of strong opposition from the rich, they “went underground, joining with communist, socialist... forces operating in Russia to overthrow the monarchy.” This movement was known as the Waisi. When rebels began to react against the monarchy in 1906 they revealed themselves as Muslim Socialists.

When the Bolsheviks toppled the Czar in 1907, the Muslims joined with the Bolsheviks and Lenin, with their socialist policies. However, when Lenin died in 1924 the Muslims declared themselves separate from Bolshevik rule, though still socialist. With the coming of the brutal totalitarian, Stalin, the movement was purged alongside millions that Stalin did not like, in the 1930s.

An Islamic scholar, Ubaidullah Sindi (originally a Sikh, but then a Sunni Muslim) agitated against the British and was hunted by the authorities during WW1, before he finally escaped to Russia, where he stayed until 1923 studying communism and socialism. He took in the teaching of economic equality and justice brought about by violence and death, but dismissed the atheism of socialism.

He went to Turkey, where he formulated his idea of socialism in Islam. He emphasised economic equality (something Marxist Barack Obama has pushed), even though Islam superficially says it is charitable towards fellow Muslims, but shows no regard for it in stark reality today. “The reason he gave for this was that though he saw both Islamic and Communist economic philosophies similar regarding their emphasis on the fair distribution of wealth, socialism if imposed with the help of a more theistic and spiritual dimension would be more beneficial to the peasant and the working classes than atheistic communism.” As I have noted, this has not happened, whether by reason of Marxism or Islam. Others soon caught the mood...

“Hafiz Rahman Sihwarwl saw Islam and Marxism sharing five elements in common: (1) prohibition of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the privileged classes (2) organisation of the economic structure of the state to ensure social welfare (3) equality of opportunity for all human beings (4) priority of collective social interest over individual privilege and (5) prevention of the permanentising of class structure through social revolution.”

It is a simple fact that Muslim factions hate each other and continually fight fellow Muslims. As with any other communistic society, the ideals never meet the actuality, but the important point is that “The motivations for many of these themes he drew from the Qur’an, which he understood as seeking to create an economic order in which the rich pay excessive, though voluntary, taxes (Zakat) to minimise differences in living standards.” Can we see the minimisation of living standards in, say, Saudi Arabia? No! The rich keep what they have and despise their poorer fellow Muslims!

“He suggested that Islam, with its prohibition of the accumulation of wealth, is able to control the class structure through equality of opportunity.”

In Islamic countries the wealthy keep their wealth and give nothing to the Islamic poor. And control of the class structure is not maintained through equality of opportunity, but by keeping the status quo, which means the majority poor are there to serve the richer Muslims. “Basically, both Sindhi and Sihwarwl had stumbled upon an Islamic concept of the social democratic welfare state.”

“Building upon the initial thoughts of Sindhi and Sihwarwl were perhaps South Asia’s two most ardent and articulate supporters and theoreticians of Islamic Socialism: Ghulam Ahmed Parvez and Dr. Khalifa Abdul Hakim.

Parvez was a prominent ‘Quranist’, or an Islamic scholar who insisted that for the Muslims to make progress in the modern world, Islamic thought and laws should be entirely based on the modern interpretations of the Qu’ran and on the complete rejection of the hadith (sayings of the Prophet and his companions based on hearsay and compiled over 100 years after the Prophet’s demise).”

They supported the idea of socialism by rejecting the hadith... and this rejection is called for by modern Muslim thinkers who see Islam as outdated and contradictory because of the hadith.

“After studying traditional Muslim texts, as well as Sufism, Parvez claimed that almost all hadiths were fabrications by those who wanted Islam to seem like an intolerant faith and by ancient Muslim kings who used these hadiths to give divine legitimacy to their tyrannical rules.

Parvez also insisted that Muslims should spend more time studying the modern sciences instead of wasting their energies on fighting out ancient sectarian conflicts or ignoring the true egalitarian and enlightening spirit of the Qu’ran by indulging in multiple rituals handed down to them by ancient ulema, clerics and compilers of the hadith.

Understandably, Parvez was right away attacked by conservative Islamic scholars and political outfits.”

So, while some Muslims thought the hadith and the Koran were contradictory and the hadith was inferior, so others thought Marxism and Islam were also contradictory – yet both existed and still do. Parvez saw Islam as a backwater of intellectual achievement, and he was right. Only leftist sympathisers claim Islam has ‘contributed’ to the world at large, when, in reality, Islam crushes thought and action.

Parvez was behind the separation of Muslim from Hindu (Pakistan and India), being urged along those lines by the later founder of Pakistan, Muhamad Ali Jinnah. Thus, we can see how Marxism influenced the break-up of India by Marxist/socialist means, rather than by purely Islamic means. “Apart from continuing to author books and commentaries on the Qu’ran, Parvez wrote a series of articles in Talu-e-Islam that propagated a more socialistic view of the holy book.” Parvez went on the attack in the newspaper (Talu-e-Islam) he edited:

“The clergy and conservative ulema have hijacked Islam.

They are agents of the rich people and promoters of uncontrolled Capitalism.

Socialism best enforces Qur’anic dictums on property, justice and distribution of wealth.

Islam’s main mission was the eradication of all injustices and cruelties from society. It was a socio-economic movement, and the Prophet was a leader seeking to put an end to the capitalist exploitation of the Quraysh merchants and the corrupt bureaucracy of Byzantium and Persia.

According to the Qur’an, Muslims have three main responsibilities: seeing, hearing and sensing through the agency of the mind. Consequently, real knowledge is based on empirically verifiable observation, or through the role of science.

Poverty is the punishment of God and deserved by those who ignore science.

In Muslim/Islamic societies, science, as well as agrarian reform should play leading roles in developing an industrialised economy.

A socialist path is a correction of the medieval distortion of Islam through Shari’a.”

The complaint, then, was that the Islamic rich controlled poorer Islamic peoples, and their views were a distortion of the Koran, forced upon Muslims by sharia. Note that if you see photographs of Parvez, he is dressed in Western style and not in an all-enveloping white gown.

“A keen student of Islam (especially Sufism), Khalifa, after getting his PhD from the Heidelberg University in Germany, authored a number of books on Iqbal’s philosophy, Islamic thought, Jallaluddin Rumi (Sufi poet and writer), and also translated the Hindu holy book, the Bhagwat Gita, into Urdu.

It was after the creation of Pakistan that Khalifa began to seriously study Marxism and what it meant to a young ‘third world’ country like Pakistan.”

“Like most Islamic Socialists of his era, Khalifa too was basically explaining Islamic Socialism to be a kind of spiritual and theistic concept of the social democratic welfare state enacted in various Western countries.”

“Parvez quite clearly suggests that an Islamic Socialist society run on the laws and economics derived from rational interpretations of the Qu’ran and modern scientific thought would inherently become responsible, law-abiding, egalitarian and enlightened and would not require the state to play the role of a moral guide.”

It is obvious to the whole world that Islam had slipped back to the middle ages with its intellectual darkness – far from the idealism of people like Parvez, who wanted the Koran treated with rigour and honesty, not irrationalism.

“In the Middle East, Islamic Socialism evolved into becoming a more nationalistic and revolutionary idea, mainly due to the creation of Israel (in 1948) and the expulsion of thousands of Palestinians from the area.”

“A Christian Syrian philosopher and Arab nationalist, Michel Aflaq, is remembered to be the originator of the Middle Eastern strain of Islamic Socialism that expressed itself as Arab Socialism and Ba’ath Socialism.

Born into an Arab Christian family, Aflaq became a communist at college and university, but broke away from the communists to formulate a radical and new Arab nationalist philosophy with another young Syrian, Salah ad-Din al-Bitar.

After studying the steady economic and political decline of the Arab peoples around the world, Aflaq and Bitar advocated the creation of a united Arab state.”

Today, the unity of Arab states cannot be found! We only find disunity, hatred and violence, of one Muslim against another. The ideal did not match the reality. At first this fake unity adopted Marxism as an ideal, but tried to separate faith and state. Now, both are together and wreak havoc upon the world, as well as upon Muslims.

“Though vehemently opposed to pro-US Arab monarchies (especially Saudi Arabia), and a close ally of the Soviet Union, Qadhafi’s Libya, unlike other Arab Socialist regimes of the time, began tempering Libya’s version of Islamic Socialism by paralleling an anti-Islamist policy with certain puritanical initiatives that saw the outlawing of the sale and consumption of alcohol, closure of nightclubs and a crackdown on Marxists in universities and colleges.

In 1976 he published a book (called the ‘Green Book’) in which he described his understanding of Islamic Socialism. The book became a compulsory read for school and college students.”

“After engulfing Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Libya, versions of Arab/Ba’ath Socialism made their way into other Muslim countries like Sudan and Somalia as well.

Sudan gained its independence from Britain in 1956. Between 1957 and 1969, the country experienced a turbulent period of democratically elected right-wing coalition governments and one military coup (1958).

In 1969, a military coup shaped on the dynamics of Nasser’s Free Officers Movement took power.

The movement and coup were led by Gaafar Nimeiry, a self-professed Arab Socialist and Nasser enthusiast.

On assuming power, Nimeiry announced his plan to base the country’s society, politics and economics on ‘independent Sudanese Socialism’.

The Nimeiry regime’s first cabinet included a number of communists who helped him devise and implement a series of socialistic economic policies.

He also devised policies to restrict intervention and influence of conservative Islamic elements in the workings of the mosques and educational institutions, suggesting that Islam was best served when practiced in private.

Nimeiry struck strong relations with Arab Socialist regimes in Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iraq and with the Soviet Union.”

“He described Sudan to be a ‘Socialist Democracy’ in which Islam played a central but private role and was not to be mixed with politics and government.”

“Apart from taking Somalia into the ‘Soviet camp,’ Barre also forged strong links with Arab Socialist states. He then formed the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party and based its manifesto on ‘scientific socialism and the egalitarian tenants of Islam.’

Apart from putting large agrarian and industrial interests in the hands of the state, the Barre regime also took control of the mosques and actively discouraged the mixing of Islam and politics.

An Islamic Socialist tendency in the politics of Iran had also begun to develop from 1950 onwards. The secular and democratic National Front founded by Mohammad Mossadegh consisted of a number of Islamic Socialists.”

“...in 1953, the Shah, with the help of British and American intelligence agencies, the Iranian military and sections of Iran’s Islamic clergy, engineered a coup and toppled the Mossadegh government.

After Mossadegh’s fall, Islamic Socialism in Iran took a more radical turn. In 1965, a group of leftist students at the Tehran University formed the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MK).

Marxism, then, underpinned and encouraged the terrorists known as the Mujahideen.

“Shariati was a sociologist who had studied in Paris and was jailed for his anti-Shah lectures and writings when he returned to Iran in 1964.

Shariati’s writings and talks became popular among university and college students when he began to express revolutionary Marxist concepts with the help of traditional Shia Muslim imagery and language, intensely attacking not only the Iranian monarchy, but the Shia clergy and the communists as well.”

“The MK expressed Shariati’s ideas in a violent manner and began an urban armed guerilla campaign against the Shah.

The organisation also played an active role during the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah – so much so that forces supporting Iranian Islamist leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, relied heavily on the armed cadres of MK to confront the Shah’s soldiers and police.

But after the revolution when the Iranian Islamists and the clergy managed to seize the government and impose strict ‘Islamic laws’, the MK began an urban guerilla movement against the Islamic regime.”

East and South Asia

We can see that Marxism was the main drive towards Islamic violence and formation, which took itself to Indonesia via former communist, Tan Malaka, who, in fighting against Dutch rule, said that Islam and Marxism were compatible. Today, we see Indonesian Islamic forces using Marxist means to overcome democracy. Malaka thought that Islam was the ‘glue’ to unify the people. But, Islam never finds peace in itself or amongst Muslims, who all fight each other.

When Malaka died in 1949, the new head of state adopted many Malaka ideas and became patron to the communist party and Islamic socialist groups. This continued until 1967. Pakistan, too, was heavily influenced by communism/Islamic Socialism, and the latter formed the first Pakistan government, though a numerically small party.

“Bhutto befriended a retired bureaucrat and veteran Marxist ideologue, J A. Rahim, and both decided to form a populist left-wing party to challenge the Ayub dictatorship.

In 1966, Bhutto also came into contact with Hanif Ramay who presented him his group’s work on Islamic Socialism.

Bhutto and Rahim formed the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in 1967. A number of Marxist and progressive intellectuals, journalists, student leaders and trade unionists joined the party, but it was Ramay’s Islamic Socialist group who prevailed when the time came to author the party’s manifesto.”

“In a series of articles (by Ramay and Safdar Mir) in ‘Nusrat,’ the writers explained (the PPP’s) Islamic Socialism as meaning:

Elimination of feudalism.

Elimination of uncontrolled capitalism and the encouragement of a system based on freedom of opportunity and/or an economic system closely monitored by the government and the state.

Nationalisation of major banks, industries and schools.

Encouraging the workers to participate in the running of factories.

Promoting democracy and the building of democratic institutions.

All this was then explained to be a modern, 20th Century extension of the principals of equality and justice as practiced by the first Muslim regime in Medina and Mecca headed by Islam’s Prophet, and of the many egalitarian economic and social proclamations found in the Holy Qu’ran.”

Today, we find that Islam is even worse when it comes to freedom and egaliterianism, for it makes demands that are a violation of peace and freedom, bringing it more in line with Stalinism than Mohammedanism. We see this is brutal reality in towns taken over by ISIS, which are said to be examples of Islamic peace. They are not peaceful, but uneasy silences that rule out freedom of thought, at pain of death! It is not peace, just silence.

“PPP’s Islamic Socialism denounced the conservative religious parties and the clergy of being representatives of monopolist capitalists, feudal lords, military dictators, the ‘imperialist forces of capitalism,’ and of being agents of backwardness and social and spiritual stagnation.”

It does not matter what style of Islam is implemented, socialism or otherwise, stagnation soon becomes death for Islamic nations, where only the wealthy live well... again a communistic picture of the elite getting everything and the poor getting nothing. Even the new Pakistan broke away from Bangladesh... both countries still poor and stagnant. And Afghanistan then adopted socialism... and we see the results today. “... apart from constantly quoting Marx and Lenin, the PDP government also began talking about the similarities between the economic systems outlined by Marxism/Socialism and Islam.” Then, in 1979 Russian troops took over.

When we read the history of Islamic countries, we should hesitate to attribute Western greed etc., to the demise of rule or hatred for the West. It is very clear that Islamic socialists took over much of Islam in those days, and where there was turmoil was exactly where communism was vaunted as the saviour of Islam. Thus, it was not truly the greed for oil etc., that brought radicalism to Islamic countries – the fault was with Islamic socialists whose rule was finally rejected, and replaced by a very violent and radical Islam that socialists tried to reform, saying that Islam was medieval in concept, holding back progress, scientific achievement and social reforms. The socialistic Islamists rightly concurred that the Koran was made violent and unjust by those who allowed hadith to be counted as equal to, or more than, the Koran. The supposed fight against the West is therefore a front, a mirage. The fault was Islam!

“... Anwar Sadat, became the head of Egypt’s Arab Socialist Union and the country’s new head of state.

Sadat continued Nasser’s socialist policies and also kept up Egypt’s financial and moral support for radical Arab Socialist regimes and movements and the PLO.

However, though the 1973 Egypt-Israel War ended in a stalemate, the country’s economy was found reeling from the war’s impact.

Saudi Arabia offered to bail out Egypt’s economy by offering millions of dollars worth of aid and oil.

By accepting Saudi help, Sadat officially restored relations with the Saudi monarchy that had been severed by Nasser.

The Saudi monarchy then asked Sadat to rehabilitate thousands of members of the right-wing Muslim Brotherhood who had been jailed by Nasser or sent into exile (mostly to Saudi Arabia).”

“Sadat lifted the ban on the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In 1974, Sadat eventually decided to pull Egypt out of the ‘Soviet camp’ and ordered Soviet military advisors, technicians and citizens who had been stationed in Egypt to leave the country.

In 1976, Sadat finally announced the end of Egypt’s socialist experiment and in 1977 changed the name of Egypt’s ruling party from Arab Socialist Union to National Democratic Party.

He ousted the last remnants of Arab Socialism from the party and ordered a crackdown on students and members of the intelligentsia who opposed his move.

Though Egypt remained largely secular, and Sadat managed to gain the support of the Muslim Brotherhood (whom he used to purge leftist students and members of the intelligentsia), he ended up offending the Brotherhood as well when he decided to enact ties with archenemy, Israel.”

Islamic Egypt was communistic. Then it changed. But, the horror of socialism continued through outwardly Islamic groups, including the terroristic Muslim Brotherhood, the friend of Barack Obama, but enemy of the USA.

“Sadat was assassinated in 1981 for this by a militant faction of the Brotherhood.”

The Bhutto regime had been elected (in 1970) on the appeal of the PPP’s socialist platform and chants of Islamic Socialism.

Overtaken by the economic crises that hit the world after the 1973 Egypt-Israel War, the Bhutto regime toned down its socialist reforms and rhetoric and entered into a number of agreements and pacts with oil-rich gulf monarchies.

Bhutto began by purging the radical left factions within the PPP and then dished out a number of constitutional concessions to right-wing Islamic parties that were close to Saudi Arabia.

He believed that this way he would be able to appease and neutralise these parties.”

Again note that the problems in Pakistan were NOT because of the West, but because of linking the government to oil-rich Islamic countries! The hatred for the West was simply a concoction of Islamic rulers who saw their powers failing.

“Z A. Bhutto (hosted) a dinner for Saudi king, Faisal, in Karachi (1975). On the King’s ‘advice,’ Bhutto toned down his socialist rhetoric and smoothed his relations with Pakistan’s Islamic parties.”

And so

“Just before the 1977 election, the words socialism and Islamic Socialism were only minimally used in the PPP’s new manifesto.

However, Bhutto’s new-found closeness to Middle Eastern monarchies, his purges against the left and his concessions to the Islamic parties failed to stem the emergence of a right-wing movement against his regime in 1977.

He was eventually toppled in a reactionary military coup led by General Ziaul Haq and then hanged in 1979 through a sham trial.”

By playing political games, Bhutto lost. He was an Islamic Socialist who pretended to court fully-Islamic countries, but this was not enough.

“Algeria traded the socialist path till 1978 or till the death of Houari Boumédienne who had ruled the country since 1965.

Colonel Chadli Bendjedid became the head of the ruling FLN party and then the new head of state.

In the early 1980s, Bendjedid began to slowly reverse Boumedienne’s socialist reforms and started negotiations with FLN’s Islamic opponents who had been opposed to FLN’s Arab Socialism and secularism.

Though Bendjedid managed to rule Algeria till 1991, his economic reforms that saw Algeria opening up its economy could not curtail the country’s deteriorating economy and the resultant unrest largely led by Algeria’s newly emboldened Islamic parties.

In 1987, Bendjedid almost completely folded FLN’s socialist agenda and ideology and began to warm up to the US, the West and the gulf monarchies.”

It is interesting that Islamists hated Islamic Socialism, and yet used Marxist methods to destroy their supposed enemy – fellow Muslims. Today, ISIS and all other Islamic movements are using the same terror tactics against their own kind, and against supposed enemies – Christians, Jews and moderate Muslims – as were used by Stalin! There is no real difference. So, all mention of the fall of Islamic Socialism in favour of ‘authentic’ Islam is a farce, especially when a large number of Islamic thinkers know that the hadith is a tool of oppression used by hard-line Islamists whose hatred is just an inward rage with no real basis except psychopathy.

Algeria:

“In 1991, the government decided to hold Algeria’s first multi-party election.

However, when municipal elections were won by a group of radical Islamist parties, the military intervened and postponed the general election.

The military blamed Bendjedid for unwittingly strengthening the Islamists and putting the country’s secular foundations in danger. He was ousted in 1991.

Between 1992 and 2002, Algeria witnessed an intense war between Islamists and the military in which thousands of Algerians were killed.

Brutalities took place on both sides. The military killed hundreds of Islamists and their sympathisers, whereas the Islamists slaughtered numerous civilians through suicide attacks, assassinations and beheadings.

The Islamist insurgency was brought under control and subdued (if not entirely crushed) by the military in 2002.”

Somalia:

“One of the Muslim countries where socialism did rather well as an economic and social initiative was Somalia.

The socialist regime there (that came to power in 1969), managed to guarantee a relatively stable economy and dramatically raised the rate of literacy.

In 1977, Somalia entered into a territorial conflict with Ethiopia, putting its main economic and political ally the Soviet Union in a quagmire.

This was because at the time the regime in Ethiopia too was in the Soviet camp. After failing to deescalate the conflict between Somalia and Ethiopia, the Soviets decided to side with the Ethiopians.”

Hatred for the West is largely mythically based. The oil was, and is, owned by Saudi and other Islamic rules, and Russia is not in the West! The results of following this course of communistic rule became obvious...

“Offended by the move, the Somalian president, Siad Barre, broke off ties with the Soviet Union and accepted American military and economic help.

In 1980, he disbanded the Somalian Revolutionary Socialist Party and reversed his socialist reforms, also loosening the curbs his government had imposed on the activities of liberal democratic parties as well as on Islamic groups.

With American aid, Barre was also able to build one of the biggest armies in Africa.

In the mid-1980s, the Barre regime began to face unrest and charges of corruption and totalitarianism.

In 1986, Barree got injured in a car accident and on his return could not stop Somalia’s slide into anarchy.

In 1991, his regime collapsed and Somalia erupted into a crippling civil war between various political and tribal factions.

Today Somalia remains to be in total anarchy.”

The country kicked out Russia and then sided with communist China! Note the reasons for disintegration were rooted entirely in personal Islamic dealings and not in any idealistic or true political demands.

“The Soviet Union’s support to Ethiopia in 1977 also offended Sudan that too had a territorial grudge with Ethiopia.

The socialist Gaafar Nimeiry regime cut off ties with the Soviet Union and moved towards the Soviets’ communist rival, China.

Detecting a wobble in the government, and with the country’s economy under duress, the militant Islamist group, the Ansar that had been routed by Nimeiry in 1971 returned to trigger another armed insurgency.

Ansar tried to mobilise some anti-Nimeiry factions in the military to mount a coup but failed.

However, this time Nimeiry agreed to hold negotiations with the Ansar who demanded that he reverse his socialist policies, denounce Islamic Socialism as an atheistic concoction and replace secular rule with an Islamic one.”

Islamic countries that joined with communism were deposed, but the ensuing chaos still remains, proving the inability of full Islam to rule any country with equity and economic success. Yet, anti-West rhetoric continues as a smokescreen.

Islamic/Ba’ath/Arab Socialism:

“Achievements

- Ideologically mobilised nationalist movements in Muslim countries caught between European colonialism, monarchial decadence and conservative ulema. - Offered a ‘third way’ between Western/American capitalism and Soviet communism. - Wrestled the initiative to interpret the socio-political aspects of Islam from the clergy and conservative ulema and radical Islamists. - Tried to construct an Islamic version (and justification) for secularism. - Co-opted various Marxist, socialist and progressive strands and entities operating in Muslim countries and got them all on a single platform. - Adopted modern social, political and cultural concepts in Muslim societies but discarded these concepts’ colonial/western legacies. - Revived the idea of ‘Ijtihad’ (independent discussion on Islamic law and faith) that had been repressed in Muslim lands for centuries. - Highlighted Islam as a progressive, dynamic and rational faith. - Eschewed differences in Muslim societies on the basis of clans, sects and tribes. - Showed creativity in designing economic and cultural policies and then expressed them with the help of progressive interpretations of Islamic texts and imagery. - Added newer, more progressive dimensions to commentaries and the study of Islam and its place in society and politics. - Encouraged the participation of women in the Muslim world to take a direct part in economic, cultural and political aspects of life. - Emphasised the importance of having high literacy rates. - Gave a political identity to middle-class youth and a sense of economic and ideological participation to the working classes.

Failures

- Remained autocratic and undemocratic in nature. - Relied heavily on the military. - Undermined the people’s political sense and rights. - Was intolerant towards opposing political and economic ideas. - Was too militaristic and yet failed over and over again in wars against foreign enemies. - Regularly intervened in matters of other countries. - Its economic maneuvers remained largely half-baked and carelessly managed. - Though rejected American hegemony and political influence in the name of independent economic and political existence, it banked on Soviet expertise, aid and patronage. - Violently repressed Islamists and Islamic outfits but then turned supportively towards them when deciding to purge opposing leftists. - Unwittingly recharged Islamist and radical Islamic forces that eventually emerged to offer the ‘Islamic option’ with the collapse of Islamic Socialism.”

In this academic treatise I do not see Islam as that much different from Marxism! They share the same blunt-instrument approach to life and people, making Islam just a pseudonym for ‘Marxism’. If you read the history carefully you will find the problem is Islam-versus-Islam. The West, even when we consider its lust for oil, is only a dupe, used because Islam does not want to appear to be broken into pieces.

Marx, an ‘Islamic Thinker’

(Husam Itani for Al Arabiya News, 16th February, 2016)

Karl Marx showed no special interest in the Middle East, so said little about it – though he did comment on the massacres in Syria (even then, in 1860!). Karl Marx opposed the social role and political impact of Judaism and Christianity, but was not interested in the content and theology of these two religions. Rather like being blindfolded before crossing electrified rail tracks! However, as far as he was concerned religion was the opiate of the people.

He wrote about the ‘conflict’ between Christianity and communism... not once thinking that the ‘conflict’ was one-way – hateful communists and atheists who did not wish to obey God. The religions themselves were, and still are, benign, whereas communism/Islam are confrontational and angry. Yet, he saw the effect of Christianity as ‘theft’ of people’s minds and hearts. This is what happens when thinkers approach a subject not from evidence but from presuppositional views.

Yet, the Egyptian cultural magazine, Akhbar al-Adab (Sept 2012), calls Marx a ‘prophet of God’ (in this context ‘God’ being used illicitly to refer to Allah). It wrote:

“With his message, this Prophet inaugurated an era of light, science and knowledge. His sayings and actions should be written in a special scientific way. And since his teachings were a revelation, he had to erase all the changes and alterations of the previous messages. Anyone with a sane mind must recognize his prophecy and that he was a Prophet from God on Earth.”

The two articles were written just a short while ago, so the sentiments in both are current Islamic thinking. The Arabic writer says this was a ‘fabrication’... but no more so than the fabrications against Jews and Christians. Many Muslims derogated the piece in the Egyptian magazine; on the other hand, many agreed with it. The writer adds:

“This brings back to mind the methods used by the sheikhs in villages and the scholars on satellite channels, who do not hesitate to rely on weak tales that are closer to fiction, to confirm Islam’s supremacy over the other religions. These sayings are also accompanied by another predicament, i.e. the use of modern sciences to prove facts related to faith.”

In other words, many Islamists are inventing meanings that do not exist, to shore up their intellectually/spiritually untenable faith. Many Christians do exactly the same thing, instead of having a genuine faith. Despite the problem that some Islamists decried the Egyptian article, the fact remains that Marx was considered Islamic in thought-pattern by Islamists! Perhaps those who were critical were resentful that for over 100 years Islam was dominated by Islamic Socialism, rather than eager to dispel what they saw as an invention. Note that they did not do so! Is this because, against all rationality, they hate democracy? (See my article on the various forms of government in the world). It still stands that much of what is called ‘Islam’ contradicts itself many times, so the possibility of Islam also being Marxist in tenor is more than feasible. Right now strident Islam is the epitome of Marxist thuggery.

Islam as Marxist

“... for decades Marxists were at pains to tell us that religion is a cultural and therefore material phenomenon. Then all that changed with the rise of Muslim demographics in the West and the concomitant rise in Islamic terrorism and Muslim radicalism. As a response to all this, Leftists -- in order to “tap into the revolutionary potential of Muslims” -- had to invent a divide between Islam and culture in order to excuse Islam itself of all its responsibility for misogyny, violence, etc.” (American Thinker, October 2014).

In the book, ‘Iranian Irony: Marxists Becoming Muslims’, Abdy Javadzadeh, Dorrance Publishing, 2011, Marxists in Iran provoked and maintained the disastrous 1979 ‘revolution’, but Islam took the credit. This was only possible because of Islamic Socialism, not because of Islam itself without a Marxist tag (page 6). The Iranian people, thinking this heralded a new era of human rights, helped to make the revolution a reality... only to see that their hopes would be dashed.

“Marxist, Muslim, and nationalist organisations... played major roles in organising the masses.” The Khomeni then crushed those who had helped to bring in an Islamic state, including Marxists and Muslims. They were then nick-named ‘anti-revolution’ and were banned, though both groups were so much alike that no Muslim wanted to be rid of their colleagues.

“The notion of Marxists using Islam or becoming Muslims is seldom stated or implied in research on Iranian Marxists or the Islamic revolution... (such a study is needed) to demonstrate Muslim’s use of Marxism...” (page 2).

The writer says of Marxist literature of that time: “Islamic terminology and ideas (that) pepper their literature”. They could only confidently say this if Marxism and Islam were compatible in general terms!

Turkey and Islamic Socialism

“One of the new debates in Turkey is the economics of Islam. Those who used to imagine an “Islamic economy” are growing out of sight, but a new grassroots movement is on the rise which believes in “Islamic socialism.” Some of them marched in Istanbul’s Taksim Square this past Labor Day as “anti-capitalist Muslims.” One of their slogans eloquently read: “Allah, bread, freedom.”

Is it fairer to say that Islamic economics does not exist, or that Islam is as anti-capitalist as Marxism? What we can say with certainty is that all strictly-Islamic countries go downhill economically and are financially defunct. Only the wealthy Muslims have money – and they keep it to themselves.

“... I doubt whether socialism would serve any of them. For there has been no socialist regime on earth which provided both bread and freedom to its people, let alone respecting God and His revelations. Quite the contrary, almost all socialist regimes proved to be tyrannical, pauperizing and theophobic.”

In reality, both Marxism and Islam drive countries to economic nothingness! (Note: ‘God’ in this context refers to Allah). The writer admits that all socialist regimes are “tyrannical, pauperising and theophobic”. As the description fits all Islamic states, we may deduce that Islamic states are similar models to Marxism! And yet Marxist Maxime Rodinson says in her 1966 book, ‘Islam and Capitalism’, that

“There are religions whose sacred texts discourage economic activity in general,” she wrote, “[but] this is certainly not the case with the Quran, which looks with favor upon commercial activity, confining itself to condemning fraudulent practices and requiring abstention from trade during certain religious festivals.”

Is this a sick joke, or just an early misinformed piece of thinking? What Islamic countries are wealthy as a nation? I know of none. And Islamists are as fraudulent as anyone else! Islam loves the free market? Tell that to murderous groups such as Hamas and ISIS et al! They are tearing down everything, and spending Western aid on arms and terror activities, so their respective areas remain poor.

In very many ways, then, Islamists are closer to Marxists than they think. As for zakat – the portion every Muslim is supposed to give to poor brethren – I see little of this in reality. In every way I see similarities between Islamic wealthy/powerful and Marxist wealthy/powerful. If you know anything about communist Russia’s dealings with its own people, you will know this to be true. Thus far I have read much rhetoric about Islam being opposite to Marxism, but I cannot believe it, given what I see and hear coming from Islamic countries and scholars.

“zakat is primarily a voluntary act of piety and a far cry from what most modern-day taxpayers experience when confronted with increased income levies or complicated regulations.” (John Thomas, Hossein Askari, Ahmad Mustafa, in the academic paper, ‘Islam and Modern Economic Change’)

Where is this tax applied, and why are Islamic countries as a whole extremely poor and turgid without resultant increase in general wealth? By comparison, it is said from a variety of surveys that people of the UK give the most to all kinds of needs throughout the world. And many of the charitable things financed are those ideas that help the Islamic poor to rise up from their poverty. Not so in Islamic countries, where build-up of arms and ruler-wealth are deemed a better option by Islamists.

“Indeed, when Prophet Muhammad (a merchant himself) was asked to fix the prices in the market because some were selling goods too dearly, he refused and said, “Only Allah governs the market.” It wouldn’t be too far-fetched to see a parallel here with Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” The Prophet also has many sayings cherishing trade, profit-making, and the beauties of life. “Muhammad,” as Rodinson put it simply, “was not a socialist.”

This is a blinkered view. I have read the life of Mohammed in several Muslim books. It is very clear that he was rejected by his peers and thus took up banditry as a way of life, stealing from merchants and their camel trains on a regular basis. He financed his marauders by distributing the booty to them – a socialistic idea! He built up his personal wealth and then gathered together more marauders in large numbers who were only too glad to ride with him to conquer whole nations and tribes, either killing them or extorting taxes so they could stay alive. This is very much like communism! There is a lot more to say on this, but you should read the information for yourself.

And, while the present Turkish administration appears to be open-market in ideal, its policies are definitely akin to those of Marxism, with control of media, punishment of dissidents, murders of Kurds, and so on.

Well, Can Islamists be Socialists?

We again swing back to the short answer: “Yes”! Dr Taimur Rahman asked “Can Muslims be Socialists?” His response was “Yes”. (Rahman’s Facebook page, 25th January 2014). He explains:

“Socialism is a mode of production (i.e. economic system) where the means of production (i.e. economic resources) are owned collectively by society. It is the opposite of capitalism where economic resources are controlled by a capitalist elite. From this definition we understand that one can belong to any religion or not belong to any religion and be a capitalist or a socialist.”

This is what I have said above. However, like all socialists, Rahman has a rose-tinted view of his own ideals. Under the heading “Don’t socialists ban religion?” he says:

“Not at all. The policy of all socialists is to uphold the complete freedom of religious practice and non-practice. The state will have nothing to do with religion. It will not stop anyone from religion, it will also not promote any one religion over the other. That is what we mean by a secular state.”

Surely he cannot be unaware of the death-strikes that killed millions in old Russia and China? Or, the genocidal activities of a wide variety of Islamic terror groups throughout the world, whose behaviour mimics almost exactly the horrific culls by communist rulers? When asked if Socialism is the same as atheism, he replies:

“Again the answer is no. Socialism is only the belief that economic resources should be controlled by the people. Hence, socialists can be atheists and atheists can be socialists. Just like Muslims can be socialists and socialists can be Muslims.”

His answers are very low-grade and bear no real resemblance to actual socialism and the perpetual harm it does to societies that foolishly adopt it. When asked why socialists criticise Islamic fundamentalists and Mullahs, he replies:

“Islamic fundamentalists are hired ideological and political mercenaries of various reactionary classes. They support oppressive and exploitative class systems. They were hired by imperialists during the cold war. They were hired by capitalists against the workers movement. They were hired by feudal lords against peasant rights. Their own agenda is to take society back to medieval society and all its barbarity, oppression, and exploitation. Hence, we fight against them so that our society can move forward.”

Typically, his theory does not fit reality. Mullahs and Islamic leaders in Islamic countries are just wicked people who want power. They oppress and exploit other Muslims because they love the pre-eminence. He is right, though, when he says that it is the intention of these intellectual paupers to “take society back to medieval society and all its barbarity, oppression, and exploitation.” But, is this not what happens in countries run by socialists?

Finally

I could give you many more references, some of which claim Islam is not socialism, and some of which say Islam IS socialism! I have shown from Islamic sources that Marxism and Islam have mixed, even to recent days. This can only happen because there are characteristics of Islam that are similar to those found in Marxism. There can be no other valid reason.

We may also look at the broad history of socialism, specifically that of countries that have adopted socialism as an economic and social model. Without doubt oppression, repression and obvious violence have been, and continue to be, used to silence dissidents, alongside the killing of people who believe differently. The same acts of evil can be seen in both socialist and Islamic states. This is because in both socialism and Islam there is no intellectually satisfying answer to questions – and those who ask the questions are not allowed to live! The invalidity of a system can usually be witnessed in its refusal to allow free expression of opposition.

So, is Islam socialist? It depends on who you talk to! To my mind, Islam is not that much different from Marxism (or fascism). Both force people to follow their regimes when such regimes have numerical power, and neither allows dissidents to speak.

But, no matter what socialism and Islam say for themselves, both are condemned by God as being godless. And both ruin nations. Perhaps you can now see why I continually refer to Islamic activity as Marxist!